Climate Change Bill [HL]

I will take advice on the last point, but I fully accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It may be that change managers are involved in the practical effects of implementing advice from the Committee on Climate Change. I do not know that, but what I am about to say might satisfy the noble Lord. I want to make it clear that what is written in the Bill should, and must, be read in the broadest possible sense. We are not being prescriptive. Amendment No. 128 proposes adding ““environmental science””, but ““climate science”” is already included in the list of expertise. I am not certain whether environmental science would include climate science, and, on the point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs made, perhaps environmental science should have been there and not climate science, as it would have covered everything. In other words, the Bill is to be read in the broadest possible sense. That is not an excuse for not having an answer; that is just how the list has been put together. It looks at the make-up of the committee as a whole. As I said, the list in paragraph 1(3) is purely in alphabetical order and broadly mirrors Clause 10. I am not going to the stake for ruling numbers out, but for its smooth functioning the committee has to be kept to a manageable size. We think that the extended sizes proposed are certainly too large, but there is flexibility in the Bill to change the numbers. On Amendment No. 128, then, our view is that since climate science is there it should be read in the broad sense. That would ensure that the committee’s recommendations are based on the best and most relevant scientific expertise. We are not clear what would be added to the Bill—since this amendment was not proposing a substitute but an addition—by putting in ““environmental science””. Amendment No. 129 proposes the inclusion of, "““all modes of passenger and freight transport technology and operations””." Frankly, we cannot see how that is a useful addition, as the committee is already required to look across the economy in providing its advice on the level of carbon budgets. A detailed consideration of all modes of transport is thus likely to be undertaken as part of that work; indeed, transport is one of the work streams already being considered by the shadow secretariat. While I am on the point, I apologise to the noble Baroness, who may chastise me for not answering her question about food in the previous debate, although she is not here now and did not make her point clear. Clearly the committee’s areas are not ruled out and it may want to give advice about the growing of bio-crops and on the issue of flying in crops from the third world. Food miles is one issue that the Committee on Climate Change, rather than me, can deal with; yet ““food miles”” is in fact a misnomer. It has been conclusively proven that some products from New Zealand have less carbon content than they would if grown in this country, or so the scientists tell us. It is therefore no simple issue, but the committee would not be precluded from looking at it since its remit is wide enough. The expertise on the committee that will be set up already includes ““technology development and diffusion””. Technology is relevant to the analysis that the committee will undertake on transport, buildings, power generation and other technologies from which abatements can occur. We do not believe, therefore, that mention of a further technology—transport, in this specific context—adds to that. In other words, our inference is that it will be covered. On Amendment No. 130, the Government and the devolved Administrations are, as I have said before, strongly committed to protecting and improving the environment. That is already embedded in government policy and strategy. Defra’s natural environment public service agreement builds on: "““The Government’s vision … to secure a diverse, healthy and resilient natural environment””." To ensure a more strategic approach to policy and delivery on the natural environment, the Government also recently published Securing a Healthy Natural Environment, an action plan for embedding an ecosystems approach.